The DeSmet leader. (DeSmet, Kingsbury Co., Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1887-07-09
Possibility OF Shcafe's Removal.
Public Opinion.

GubIfc OPINION.
WASHINGTON, ID. c., April 10.
Register and Receiver, Watertown, Dakota:
Gcntlemcn:-I am in receipt OF your letter OF
the 18th inst stating as reason for not order
ing proofs taken before Judges OF Probate
that rs matter of fact the Judges of Probate
in majority OF cases, act as attorney for the
claimants. This reason is sufficient for refus-
ing TO order proot to be taken In anv case be.
fore any officer who so misuses the functions
Of his Office, Very Respectfully,
WA. J. SPARKS, Commissioner.
The above letter is in reply to one
written by Mr.. Sheafe to the commits
sioncr, complaining that probate judges
were in the loaning business, in ma
jority of cases, furnishing the settlers
money to prove up with, and then act
ing as their attorneys, hence they were
not proper persons to transact govern
ment business. OF course. as we have
before stated in these columns, the real
objection to the probate judges on the
part of Mr.. Sheafe is their republican
proclivities. but it is our purpose now
to accuse Mr.. Sheafe by his own line Of
argument, of doing the very same thing
he condemns i'm others. and which the
commissioner himself says is misuse
Of the functions of his Office. Nj. w.
Sheafe is register of the u. s. land Of
flee Of this district, and as such official
he passes upon all final proofs present
ed by settlers. Mr.. Sheafe Is also vice.
president of the Dakota Loan & Trust
Company, an institution which loans
money 10 settlers to prove up with; he
is also a member of their investment
committee, and is compelled to pass
upon the sufficiency of all securities
offered. Now put these two official
positions together, and what is the re-
sult2 Simply this: a settler goes to
the bank to procure loan; over comes
Sheafe ION government timel TO pass
upon the security; that done Sheafe pi-
lots the settler over to the land Office
and receives his final proof, which of
course is all right; the settler pays his
500, gets a receiver s receipt and every
thing is lovely. Now If a probate judge
is denied the right to make out final
proof papers because he is engaged in
the business of loaning money. lfor
fear he might act impartially) how can
the acts of Mr.. Sheafe be justified when
lie not only loans money 10 the settler,
as an official in monied corporation,
but also passes upon the same mans
final proof as paid official of the gov
ernment? What is the difference be-
tween tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumf
There IS another tale to unfold i'm this
matter.
Not long ago acting commissioner
Stockslager wasinformed in person Of
the double-dealing above referred to Of
Mr. Sheafe, when that officer emphatic
ally stated that il the informant would
substantiate his charge by sworn testi-
Inony he would have Sheafe removed
from office in a jiffy. The gentleman
giving the information not wishing Ia
involve his party, let the matter drop.
Judging from this MIR. Sheafe Is likely
to wake up some fine morning and find
his head in the political waste basket
The attention Of Secretary Lamar Ii
called to the above facts, which can bs
substantiatcd by ample evidence.